Coffeehouse Thread

124 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Political Bing

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    DeathBy​VisualStudio

    , TexasToast wrote

    @Maddus Mattus:

    *snip*

    That is what Obama should do with the healthcare here.   Malpractice is driving huge costs here.  It is making unnecessary procedures to cover your butt.    I don't think Obama will do it unless he proves me wrong and he really is a good human being.     I expect costs to go on an exponential rise here in the US.  

    More FUD from the master FUDer. Obama is trying to drive down healthcare costs that were on an exponential rise long before Obamacare was enacted. If the Republicans put their money where their mouth was they'd stop trying to kill Obamacare and start trying to improve it by adding the tort reform piece that is so desperately missing from it.

  • User profile image
    TexasToast

    @DeathByVisualStudio: I like to buy my healthcare and not line up for crappy care.  Looks like the stock market loves him too I see.   Biggest drop all year.    When are the pink slips coming.  Texas might have to go it on it's own.   Republic of Texas.  Jeb Bush 2016!

  • User profile image
    DeathBy​VisualStudio

    , TexasToast wrote

    @DeathByVisualStudio: I like to buy my healthcare and not line up for crappy care.  Looks like the stock market loves him too I see.   Biggest drop all year.    When are the pink slips coming.  Texas might have to go it on it's own.   Republic of Texas.  Jeb Bush 2016!

    And you still can buy your own healthcare. More FUD.

    Yeah that's what we need another Bush failure of a president. What, third time is the charm?

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , TexasToast wrote

    @DeathByVisualStudio: I like to buy my healthcare and not line up for crappy care.  Looks like the stock market loves him too I see.   Biggest drop all year.    When are the pink slips coming.  Texas might have to go it on it's own.   Republic of Texas.  Jeb Bush 2016!

    They tried that under Lincoln. Didn't work out so well for Texas.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    Argument from authority. I don't care who uses them, I reject them on the basis that I don't think they provide a realistic picture. Disposable income in nearly twice that in the USA compared to the Netherlands. Then 4000 sounds like a lot all of a sudden!

    Actually the claim to Authority is that you're rejecting the data because you think you know better than people like the WHO who actually do this kind of comparison day-in, day-out for a living.

    You're just a failed FUD artist who can't see that rational argument comes from debating facts, not just shouting opinions.

    Come up with some data to say you're right, otherwise you're just wrong.

    If everyone is disagreeing with you, and there's no data to backup your half-hearted assertions, then chances are it's because you're wrong, rather than a global conspiracy to hide the evidence of your idiotic opinions.

    How can increasing the bureaucracy lead to a reduction in costs? It's physically impossible. You are going to have to pay the middle man as well, so cost will increase by definition. As a capitalist, you should know that.

    Bigger purchase orders = lower costs. That's why the NHS outperforms and under-costs the US private healthcare system for the last fifty years. Go private sector!

    In the UK we don't have to pay the middle-man. We pay the NHS, not our insurance company. That's why we're cheaper than the US.

    I sure hope you never ever get a malpractice in our hospitals,. The examples are numerous,.

    Numerous in America too. That's why insurance is so expensive over there.

  • User profile image
    Dr Herbie

    @evildictaitor: Plus insurance works out better when you have more people invested -- which is why a national health insurance is the most efficient in terms of insurance costs.

    Herbie

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    , Dr Herbie wrote

    @evildictaitor: Plus insurance works out better when you have more people invested -- which is why a national health insurance is the most efficient in terms of insurance costs.

    Herbie

    Yes sir.

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    Every elected Republican President since WWII has had either a Nixon or Bush on the ticket.

    Jeb Bush will run in 4 years and try to win hispanic votes, he is married to a hispanic woman in FL. It won't work unless Republicans learn to respect women, and that's more than they can ever do.

    Jeb Bush as President of the USA would be more of the same spend-spend loot-loot that we've witnessed our entire lives, along with the song of how Democrats are the big spenders. Democrats seem to spend to clean up the mess Republicans leave behind, at least since 1961 they have done so.

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    I don't care who uses them, I reject them on the basis that I don't think they provide a realistic picture.

    You're still not providing a counter argument, just rejecting his argument.

    The question you should be answering is: what figures do you think provide a realistic picture? And why do they convince you that the US model of healthcare works better than the Dutch model? You must have seen such figures (or if number don't do it, an in-depth impartial comparative study or something similar), otherwise you wouldn't hold such a position, right? So why not share that with us instead of just saying that the data he's basing his view on is wrong without explanation?

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @Sven Groot: Fair enough.

    I would like to see costs set out against income. And I would like a quality measurement (deaths, complications, malpractices, etc.).

    Then you can judge if what people are paying as a percentage of income and what quality care they are getting in return. Then you would be able to judge if people are paying a fair price for the services they receive. Just comparing money is way to simplistic for me to go by.

    A good indication of quality care is maternal mortality. In a high quality care environment this should be a low figure;

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/12/maternal-mortality-rates-millennium-development-goals

    Then you would have a broad figure on which system provides the best care for the best price.

    @evildictaitor:

    'We just do it this way' is another argument from authority.

    For the rest, see my reply to Sven.

    While I see your point about me spreading FUD, because I don't have any data to back it up. It's just my belief that government cannot plan resources efficiently, because they lack the incentive to compete. So they will drive costs up by definition. While buying in bulk reduces costs, NHS is a monopoly and will only drive costs up, because it lacks competition.

    Healthcare wasn't always this expensive. In the good old days you could get a years worth of healthcare for days wage. Ever since government got involved, those days have increased to weeks. It was the physicians in cahoots with government that drove up the cost, because it's a hard nut to swallow as a physician that you are at the whim of these pesky patients.

    Now of course you can play your Zimbabwe card again, but also consider other goods and services. The car was is a product of the free market. The innovation in the free market has made this method of transportation available for everybody. As a result life expectancy leaped forward, increasing the quality of all humans. Look at Windows, also a feat of the free market, increased the quality of our lives as well. No government program has ever increased the quality of our lives, it's all a product of the free market. People pursuing their individual interests and as a result creating a better society.

    Given the reputation of government and the reputation of the free market, how in the world can you opt for more government control? It's beyond me.

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @Sven Groot: Fair enough.

    I would like to see costs set out against income. And I would like a quality measurement (deaths, complications, malpractices, etc.).

    I'm not asking what you would like to see, I'm asking what information you did see that made you decide that the US model of health care is better than the Dutch model.

    A good indication of quality care is maternal mortality. In a high quality care environment this should be a low figure;

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/12/maternal-mortality-rates-millennium-development-goals

    Which clearly shows that the Netherlands is amongst the lowest in the world, and clearly superior to the US. In fact, most of the countries at the top of that list have some form of socialized health care. So this obviously wasn't the thing that made you decide that socialized health care is bad. So what was it?

  • User profile image
    Dr Herbie

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    *snip*

    Healthcare wasn't always this expensive. In the good old days you could get a years worth of healthcare for days wage. 

    *snip*

    Seriously?  You're using "the good old days" as a yardstick? Which "good old days" was this?  The good old days when medicine was very cheap and not very effective? When mortality rates were pretty high?  When the used leeches? Prior to the invention of anesthesia? Prior to cancer care?  Prior to vaccinations? Prior to MRI-scans? Prior to transplants?  When surgery was still carried out by barbers? When chewing willow bark was the pinnacle of pharmacology?

    Again, if you're going to state something as fact, you're going to need evidence of some sort, not some rose-tinted view of "the good old days".

    Herbie

     

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    , Sven Groot wrote

    I'm not asking what you would like to see, I'm asking what information you did see that made you decide that the US model of health care is better than the Dutch model.

    An eye opener for me was when I compared the Belgium system compared to the Dutch system.

    In Belgium physicians have to negotiate contracts with the insurance companies, making them compete with one another. While the system is still a form of social healthcare (premiums are deducted from wage and are compulsory), it's a step in the right direction. That's why a lot of Belgian hospitals treat many Dutch patients. Healthcare is more accessible and generally of good quality. This is a prime indicator that the Belgian care is better then the Dutch care.

    Hard data is hard to come by, because organizations that measure these figures are so hell bent on GDP and income per capita. I've made up my mind based on the many things I've read and my personal experiences with our system over the years.

    Which clearly shows that the Netherlands is amongst the lowest in the world, and clearly superior to the US. In fact, most of the countries at the top of that list have some form of socialized health care. So this obviously wasn't the thing that made you decide that socialized health care is bad. So what was it?

    It was an example of a quality measurement, if you want to see it as proof of a working social healthcare system, one should also compare it to costs as a percentage of income. Then you could judge at what cost you are saving those lives. Then one could make an objective observation of which system is the best solution.

    The reason I came to the conclusion that our healthcare system is worse, is because we are struggling to pay for it all. There are talks of increasing our contributions to the healthcare, while they are already at a large sum of our income.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    , Dr Herbie wrote

    Seriously?  You're using "the good old days" as a yardstick? Which "good old days" was this?  The good old days when medicine was very cheap and not very effective? When mortality rates were pretty high?  When the used leeches? Prior to the invention of anesthesia? Prior to cancer care?  Prior to vaccinations? Prior to MRI-scans? Prior to transplants?  When surgery was still carried out by barbers? When chewing willow bark was the pinnacle of pharmacology?

    Again, if you're going to state something as fact, you're going to need evidence of some sort, not some rose-tinted view of "the good old days".

    Herbie

    Yes seriously.

    Costs of nearly everything has gone down since the 'good old days' as compared to a percentage of income. The car went from a commodity used only by the super wealthy, to a method of transportation for all. Free markets and innovation drove costs down and quality up.

    Why should medical care be any different?

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    *snip*

    Yes seriously.

    Costs of nearly everything has gone down since the 'good old days' as compared to a percentage of income. The car went from a commodity used only by the super wealthy, to a method of transportation for all. Free markets and innovation drove costs down and quality up.

    Why should medical care be any different?

    Maybe medical technology is not stagnant, consider that possibility?

    What is the price of new technology? Negligible?

    Medical care is very, very different, which is a good thing if you need help assessing the difference.

    Pringles potato chips stack nicely, too.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    Costs of nearly everything has gone down since the 'good old days' as compared to a percentage of income. The car went from a commodity used only by the super wealthy, to a method of transportation for all.

    Actually, the real-terms price of a car now is the same as it was 50 years ago.

    And the real-terms cost of a reasonably high end tower PC is the same as it was ten years ago.

    And the real-terms cost of a house now is markedly higher than it was 50 or 10 years ago.

    And the real-terms cost of a mid-range phone is higher than it was 10 years ago.

    So no. The "good old days" and "your gut feeling" about them is just the BS of an old man who regrets the fact that his shouty opinions don't matter in this world anymore.

     

    Healthcare costs more now because we're treating more complex things later in life. Fifty years ago, you were old if you were 70. Now, you're old if you're 90. Those twenty extra years of life are due to the extra spending on medical care.

    And I would be astonished if the real-terms cost of healthcare for a 20-30 year old healthy adult is any different to what it was twenty, thirty or fifty years ago.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.